PDA

View Full Version : Boston University 2011-2012 Season Thread: Part III: Now What?



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 [44] 45 46 47 48 49 50

Agganis
01-29-2012, 08:11 PM
TF, I guess you saw Curry do it enough you knew what I meant

Nah, just heard y'all whine about it enough that we know what it means to you:D

quiddlet
01-29-2012, 08:19 PM
Nah, just heard y'all whine about it enough that we know what it means to you:D

This. Considering I wasn't here for Curry and I know what he meant.

Harry Cleverly
01-29-2012, 08:21 PM
Have you seen a replay of this yet? It was textbook embellishment. The guys on tv were making fun of Noonan so bad for the dive.

They got that one right. There should be no doubts about that.

I've written it before, and I will stick with my belief. Calling an embellishment on a penalty is a stupid rule. If it is a penalty, call the penalty. If it is not a penalty, then it can embellishment, and call it. One or the other, not both.
Having officials making judgements of intent, when there is an actual penalty, is not a position they should be put in.

The other worrying trend lately is referees anticipating penalties, raising their arms before anything actually happens, and nothing happens except an innocent player heading to the box.

The quality of officiating is so far behind the quality of play league-wide that it is a real shame. The ECAC isn't much different.

acs64
01-29-2012, 08:52 PM
I've written it before, and I will stick with my belief. Calling an embellishment on a penalty is a stupid rule. If it is a penalty, call the penalty. If it is not a penalty, then it can embellishment, and call it. One or the other, not both.
Having officials making judgements of intent, when there is an actual penalty, is not a position they should be put in.

The other worrying trend lately is referees anticipating penalties, raising their arms before anything actually happens, and nothing happens except an innocent player heading to the box.

The quality of officiating is so far behind the quality of play league-wide that it is a real shame. The ECAC isn't much different.

Nope, you would wrong here. When a ref sees someone making a marginal cross check to the back....and its followed up an obnoxiously obvious dive, he's got to call them both. If he calls just the cross check that really isnt one to start with and ignores the dive its a joke. If he calls just the dive, he gets 5 earfuls from Jackie for not calling the "cross check". Its the simple, safe and only call you'll see the ref ever make.

All you people saying its got to be one or the other simply dont see the whole picture.

Bumbles
01-29-2012, 08:55 PM
So heard Privitera's injury wasn't as serious as it could've been (doesn't require surgery). Yay for that?

brassbonanza
01-29-2012, 08:55 PM
So heard Privitera's injury wasn't as serious as it could've been (doesn't require surgery). Yay for that?

Word is fractured wrist, 4 weeks, so maybe the NU series? Nicastro is day to day with his shoulder.

Bumbles
01-29-2012, 09:13 PM
Word is fractured wrist, 4 weeks, so maybe the NU series? Nicastro is day to day with his shoulder.

4 weeks would be great but I wouldn't be surprised if it took somewhat longer, especially if it's his dominant shooting wrist.

Hopefully Nicastro can go by Friday, I don't see us beating Merrimack running the same lineup we had yesterday.

Harry Cleverly
01-29-2012, 11:48 PM
Nope, you would wrong here. When a ref sees someone making a marginal cross check to the back....and its followed up an obnoxiously obvious dive, he's got to call them both. If he calls just the cross check that really isnt one to start with and ignores the dive its a joke. If he calls just the dive, he gets 5 earfuls from Jackie for not calling the "cross check". Its the simple, safe and only call you'll see the ref ever make.

All you people saying its got to be one or the other simply dont see the whole picture.

It is my opinion that embellishment when there is a penalty being called is a stupid rule.
That is my opinion. You can disagree with my opinion, and make your own points. But you can't tell me that I am wrong, just like I won't tell you that you are wrong. Just that we disagree.

The embellishment call in the Rangers - Flyers outdoor game, when the fouled player would have had a breakaway with an empty net is another example of why it is a stupid rule. Why would a would go down in that situation unless he was brought down. There is no other reason. But because the referee is asked to judge intent, and in this his his judgement was so wrong, shows why he shoudn't even be asked to make that judgement. Just make the **** call.

The more cut and dry you can make it for the officials, the higher level of officiating we'll get. The more judgement, and particularly judgement of intent, you add into the equation, the more inconsistency and lower level of officiating we'll get.
Right now, the level is pretty low.

acs64
01-30-2012, 07:13 AM
It is my opinion that embellishment when there is a penalty being called is a stupid rule.
That is my opinion. You can disagree with my opinion, and make your own points. But you can't tell me that I am wrong, just like I won't tell you that you are wrong. Just that we disagree.



Nope, you are still wrong.

True Blue Fan
01-30-2012, 08:15 AM
[/b]

As I posted on the Maine thread. Learn the rules. You fanboys are hilarious. You're the greatest fans in the world because you wear jerseys but don't even know the rules. OK.

[/b]

No doubt that is the rule as it reads, but honestly how many times have you ever seen a slash called when no contact is made?

claver2010
01-30-2012, 08:47 AM
The quality of officiating is so far behind the quality of play league-wide that it is a real shame. The ECAC isn't much different.

This.

It really is a joke night in and night out. The fact that Bertanga puts his head in the sand and trots out the same idiots with the same result every year is insulting.

Harry Cleverly
01-30-2012, 10:55 AM
Nope, you are still wrong.

It must give you a nice sense of false security being so close-minded.

buoldtimer
01-30-2012, 11:28 AM
I know that Cisse was benched for indifferent play, of late. However, he was dressed and epoxied to the bench for the first period. He was nowhere to be found for the third period. Does anyone know what transpired?

Runsub5
01-30-2012, 12:12 PM
It is my opinion that embellishment when there is a penalty being called is a stupid rule.
That is my opinion. You can disagree with my opinion, and make your own points. But you can't tell me that I am wrong, just like I won't tell you that you are wrong. Just that we disagree.

The embellishment call in the Rangers - Flyers outdoor game, when the fouled player would have had a breakaway with an empty net is another example of why it is a stupid rule. Why would a would go down in that situation unless he was brought down. There is no other reason. But because the referee is asked to judge intent, and in this his his judgement was so wrong, shows why he shoudn't even be asked to make that judgement. Just make the **** call.

The more cut and dry you can make it for the officials, the higher level of officiating we'll get. The more judgement, and particularly judgement of intent, you add into the equation, the more inconsistency and lower level of officiating we'll get.
Right now, the level is pretty low.

For what it's worth, I agree with you.

Nick Papagiorgio
01-30-2012, 12:41 PM
I know that Cisse was benched for indifferent play, of late. However, he was dressed and epoxied to the bench for the first period. He was nowhere to be found for the third period. Does anyone know what transpired?

Someone might want to check with the BC hockey blogger before heading over to the Freep. He'll probably have the scoop before they do... just sayin...

brassbonanza
01-30-2012, 01:43 PM
Someone might want to check with the BC hockey blogger before heading over to the Freep. He'll probably have the scoop before they do... just sayin...

The Freep doesn't post here anymore, so it's not that relevant anyway.

Agganis
01-30-2012, 01:58 PM
Agganis will never be able to duplicate the atmosphere at Walter Brown, which had the low metal roof to hold all of the noise in. Even if 6,300 people individually made the same noise that 3,700 could make at WBA, it wouldn't be as loud.
That is the price of progress.

I plan on saying this every time someone mentions the atmosphere will never be the same as WBA for the next month (so y'all should say it a lot if you want me to pad my post count): Buy tickets to the game on 3/3 at NU, ideally the front half of 26, 25 or 24. You'll have your WBA atmosphere back.

Bomber
01-30-2012, 02:31 PM
Sorry Harry, but I disgree with you.

An infraction followed by an imbelishment call are two different offenses. 1) is the infraction. i.e., Player A is cross-checked in the back. 2) is the "sell job." Player B (the cross-checkie) trying to "sell the call" with the ref, by shooting his head back and flopping to the ice like he's been shot. (See any NBA game.) I agree that #2 should be called when it happens. And 90% of the time, they get it right.

BU Hockey: SFA Trained

DaveStPaul
01-30-2012, 02:39 PM
BU Hockey: SFA Trained

Hey, as a graduate of SFA I gotta say Noonan needs some work. That guy couldn't act his way out of a paper bag.

buoldtimer
01-30-2012, 05:21 PM
Sorry Harry, but I disgree with you.

An infraction followed by an imbelishment call are two different offenses. 1) is the infraction. i.e., Player A is cross-checked in the back. 2) is the "sell job." Player B (the cross-checkie) trying to "sell the call" with the ref, by shooting his head back and flopping to the ice like he's been shot. (See any NBA game.) I agree that #2 should be called when it happens. And 90% of the time, they get it right.

BU Hockey: SFA Trained

BU Hockey: Last week, handshake protocol
This week, acting reviews